Held Too Long, Case Thrown Out: Why Benavides v. Superior Court Reinforces California’s 10-Day Rule
When an accused individual is sitting in jail waiting for a preliminary hearing, California law imposes strict deadlines on the prosecution. Those deadlines are not suggestions. They are mandatory—and when they are violated, the case must be dismissed.
That is exactly what the Court of Appeal reaffirmed in Benavides v. Superior Court (People), a recent decision that underscores how powerful Penal Code section 859b can be when properly enforced.
Our experienced criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich can guide you through the legal process. Call Wallin & Klarich today toll-free at (877) 466-5245 for your free consultation with one of our criminal defense attorneys near you.
The 10-Court-Day Rule Under Penal Code § 859b
Under Penal Code section 859b, when an accused individual is in custody at arraignment, the prosecution must hold a preliminary hearing within 10 court days. If the preliminary hearing is continued beyond that deadline, the case must be dismissed, unless:
- The accused individual personally waives the 10-day deadline; or
- The prosecution establishes good cause for the continuance before the deadline expires.
If neither happens—and the accused individual remains in custody for 10 or more court days solely on the complaint—the trial court has no discretion. Dismissal is mandatory.
What Happened in Benavides
Armando Benavides was charged by criminal complaint with assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury, along with an allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. At his arraignment on July 9, 2024, the trial court remanded him into custody and set a preliminary hearing for July 22, 2024—designated as the ninth court day under section 859b.
Before that hearing could occur, a countywide cyberattack shut down all Los Angeles County courthouses. As a result, July 22 became a court holiday, and the preliminary hearing was automatically continued to July 23—the tenth court day.
On July 23, Benavides was not transported to court. Over defense objection—and without making any finding of good cause—the trial court continued the preliminary hearing beyond the statutory deadline. The court ordered Benavides released on his own recognizance, but he was not actually released from custody until July 26, three days later.
The trial court denied a defense motion to dismiss under section 859b. After writ relief was denied in the superior court, Benavides sought relief from the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal’s Ruling: Dismissal Was Required
The Court of Appeal granted the writ of prohibition and ordered the case dismissed.
The court emphasized that all three statutory requirements for dismissal were met:
- Benavides was in custody at arraignment;
- The preliminary hearing was continued beyond the tenth court day without a personal waiver or a good-cause finding; and
- Benavides remained in custody for more than 10 court days because he was not actually released until July 26.
The prosecution argued that the trial court’s order releasing Benavides on the tenth court day was enough to satisfy section 859b. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument outright.
Actual Custody Controls—Not Court Orders
The appellate court made clear that section 859b turns on actual custody, not judicial intent or administrative paperwork. If an accused individual remains physically in custody beyond the tenth court day, the statute is violated—even if the delay is caused by the Sheriff’s Department or other logistical issues.
Any delay in effectuating release is charged to the People, not the accused individual.
Why This Decision Is So Important
The ruling in Benavides reinforces several critical principles that protect accused individuals:
- Section 859b is mechanical and unforgiving. Once its conditions are met, dismissal is mandatory.
- Extraordinary events do not excuse noncompliance unless the prosecution makes a timely good-cause showing.
- Release must be real, not theoretical. An accused individual must actually walk out of custody by the tenth court day.
- System failures fall on the prosecution, not the defense.
For accused individuals held in custody, this decision confirms that courts cannot sidestep statutory protections through delay, administrative error, or after-the-fact explanations.
Cases like Benavides v. Superior Court show how crucial it is to have a defense team that understands—and aggressively enforces—California’s custody deadlines. A missed deadline can mean the difference between continued prosecution and complete dismissal of the case.
Call Wallin & Klarich Today
At Wallin & Klarich, our criminal defense attorneys have decades of experience identifying violations of Penal Code section 859b and other procedural safeguards designed to protect accused individuals. If you or a loved one is being held in custody and your preliminary hearing has been delayed, immediate legal action may be necessary.
At Wallin & Klarich, we have offices all over Southern California: Irvine, Pasadena, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Torrance, and Anaheim. Additionally, our law firm can handle many types of cases statewide.
Discover how our team can assist you. Contact us today, toll-free at (877) 466-5245 for a free consultation with a skilled criminal defense attorney near you.
